UBI - Universal Basic Income

Well, it has never been tried so far. At least on a larger scale. As far as trickle down economy goes though, we do have at the very least one experience where it was directly applied to a state in the US, like Kansas? I think? Not sure. But I remember they simply cut taxes - by a lot - while at the same time decreasing government spending, defunding of schools and many other government expenditures with the intention to boost the economy. The result? They had to roll it all back. Hard. The economy nearly tanked as a result. So there is that.


I believe, if we have even a chance to make the UBI somehow work, we really should give it at the very least a shot. It's worth a try. There have been several occasions in history where the deficit for the budged has been increased and strained and always for rather questionable stuff, like military spending and the like. Why not allow a whole state to "test" it, if the population choses it? Have a referendum on it and when people decide for it, test it for 5 years. Why not simply try it, like they did it with Trickle-Down economy. Governments certainly do not shy away from cutting taxes like crazy when it comes to corporations while blowing up the budged. So they are willing to take risks at least on one side of the spectrum.

And second I think you completely underestimate the positive effects this could have on people just in relieve alone. Anxiety, depressions, drug abuse and many other issues which are on their way to become common illness will decrease, so it will save lives there can be no doubts about it or the benefits of easier access to healthy food and actually taking medical treatments without postponing them which makes them often more severe. Those are benefits which can not be easily measured in direct money but still play a tremendous importance on the physical and mental well beings of the population. I've been working for nearly half a decade in the social sector an I could see hundreds of opportunities where it would immediately improve the situations of people.

What you could look at, for example, is the German Project "Mein Grundeinkommen" a sort of lottery financed trough charity where they chose a number of people which get each month a 1000 euros for one year, the intention is a sort of testing ground simply to see what people would do with that money and the project has been active since 2014. So far 561 people from 182.243 participants already received it. The experience by it so far, seems to be overly positive. Particularly to the people which are having serious issues to make ends meet.

The experiences and examples continue to pile up - at least in relatively small samples but I think we will see more and bigger testing and experience in the near future - and so far it seems to be positive. None I heard of ceased to work entirely, most people simply lowered their work load a bit and the overwhelming majority used it for something positive. Quite a few used their UBI to become entrepreneurs or starting projects they always wanted to try but never had the time or opportunity to start.

I do believe the cases that speak for it at least on an ideological basis become stronger and stronger the more time is passing. The only question which has to be solved is really in finding a way to finance it. But seriously this doesn't worry me really. If our species managed to put someone on the moon and a robot on Mars, then we will one day figure out a way to make that happen as well.
 
Sure, I'm all for trying it. Just don't be surprised if the costs overwhelm the benefits.
 
Hey, I am cynical idealist believing in utopian ideas which will inevitably fail.

Nothing can surprise me. And yet ... I still get always fucked.
 
a number of people which get each month a 1000 euros for one year, the intention is a sort of testing ground simply to see what people would do with that money...
My experience with Katrina was that once the FEMA checks came in, there were suddenly a lot of people driving around in Hummers. What do they think people will do with free money(?)... spend it wisely? If they can, they will go to the casino.
 
Well, it has never been tried so far. At least on a larger scale. As far as trickle down economy goes though, we do have at the very least one experience where it was directly applied to a state in the US, like Kansas? I think? Not sure. But I remember they simply cut taxes - by a lot - while at the same time decreasing government spending, defunding of schools and many other government expenditures with the intention to boost the economy. The result? They had to roll it all back. Hard. The economy nearly tanked as a result. So there is that.


I believe, if we have even a chance to make the UBI somehow work, we really should give it at the very least a shot. It's worth a try. There have been several occasions in history where the deficit for the budged has been increased and strained and always for rather questionable stuff, like military spending and the like. Why not allow a whole state to "test" it, if the population choses it? Have a referendum on it and when people decide for it, test it for 5 years. Why not simply try it, like they did it with Trickle-Down economy. Governments certainly do not shy away from cutting taxes like crazy when it comes to corporations while blowing up the budged. So they are willing to take risks at least on one side of the spectrum.

And second I think you completely underestimate the positive effects this could have on people just in relieve alone. Anxiety, depressions, drug abuse and many other issues which are on their way to become common illness will decrease, so it will save lives there can be no doubts about it or the benefits of easier access to healthy food and actually taking medical treatments without postponing them which makes them often more severe. Those are benefits which can not be easily measured in direct money but still play a tremendous importance on the physical and mental well beings of the population. I've been working for nearly half a decade in the social sector an I could see hundreds of opportunities where it would immediately improve the situations of people.

What you could look at, for example, is the German Project "Mein Grundeinkommen" a sort of lottery financed trough charity where they chose a number of people which get each month a 1000 euros for one year, the intention is a sort of testing ground simply to see what people would do with that money and the project has been active since 2014. So far 561 people from 182.243 participants already received it. The experience by it so far, seems to be overly positive. Particularly to the people which are having serious issues to make ends meet.

The experiences and examples continue to pile up - at least in relatively small samples but I think we will see more and bigger testing and experience in the near future - and so far it seems to be positive. None I heard of ceased to work entirely, most people simply lowered their work load a bit and the overwhelming majority used it for something positive. Quite a few used their UBI to become entrepreneurs or starting projects they always wanted to try but never had the time or opportunity to start.

I do believe the cases that speak for it at least on an ideological basis become stronger and stronger the more time is passing. The only question which has to be solved is really in finding a way to finance it. But seriously this doesn't worry me really. If our species managed to put someone on the moon and a robot on Mars, then we will one day figure out a way to make that happen as well.

I can't help but think your current living condition largely factors into this. I know if I was not receiving disability and had no job I might think it was a good idea. But someone thinking something is a good idea isn't the same thing as it actually being one.

Our UBI is called Welfare. Poor crackheads that almost always have one or two kids can usually qualify. But Toront. What about the people without kids? You are not considered useful as a citizen since you do not contribute in any meaningful way. Your only hope is to knock up somebody (or get knocked up if you have the gear) and wrack up thousands in debt like the rest of us.

If it looks like Bankruptcy is coming, spend it all on shit they can not take back when it is done with. So get your credit right while you are young so you can ruin it when you get around my age. Don't be bummed out about it though. It's just life in the 21st century.
 
GIBS ME COOF BUCKS NOW! I want to buy a ONAHOLE for my homemade LOLI SEX DOLL!
That's right WAGIES I'm gonna marry my imouto on your dime while I dine on only the finest chicken tenders with a wide selection of sauces... almost as wide as my wallet, wow would you look at the time, you better get back to work. :smug:
1587014606106.jpg
 
My experience with Katrina was that once the FEMA checks came in, there were suddenly a lot of people driving around in Hummers. What do they think people will do with free money(?)... spend it wisely? If they can, they will go to the casino.
So just out of curiosity and I am not trying to attack you but If I get you right you wouldn't give people $1200 right now like Trump and the Senate decided because you saw more Hummers driving around after Katrina?

What do you think how many people got money after Katrina? 100.000? 1.000.000?

How many of them bought a Hummer?

50% 20% or just 1%?

Say 1 person in 10000 bought a Hummer does it mean the other 9999 shouldn't get it?

The bottom line of it is that you want to punish a majority because of a perceived minority which bought Hummers. I don't question the fact that you saw Hummers driving around after Katrina. But are you sure everyone which got money from the government as a stress relief bought a $70.000 Hummer? How expensive is a Hummer and how much money did people get? Did you know them all? What if those cars which are really very prominent simply became more visible. I once saw a Ferrari standing in one of the worst districts of Munich. The car immediately popped in to my view because it stood out from all the others. A few days later I saw another one. Was it the same one?

What about all the others that used their money to rebuild their homes, feed their families and used it to get back on their feet? I have serious doubts the majority bought Hammers. As far as I can read the FEMA handed out $2000. A bit difficult to believe anyone really used it to buy Hummers leave alone the majority. Even if we would assume you had some individual that managed to buy from those $2000 a Hummer that's not an argument for me to not help all those other people who have been hit really hard by that disaster with cash which allows them to decide for them self what they actually need. You might say, hey why not just give them food? What if someone needs more than just food? What if someone needs insulin? What if someone just needs a few repairs in his home? I don't know, the point is that it's not just about food here.
I can't help but think your current living condition largely factors into this.
Now that you mention it, I mean yeah you're right of course. I guess that's very true and it's a fair point. But I could also say it gives me a different outlook or perspective. Here is the thing when you're in therapy for severe depressions and crippling anxiety dealing with the authorities can be sometimes like pouring gasoline in a dumpster fire while you're looking for a way to find the extinguisher and calling the fire fighters and people ask you constantly why you're not capable of putting the fire out and hey there is something on fire put it out.
 
...but If I get you right you wouldn't give people $1200 right now like Trump and the Senate decided because you saw more Hummers driving around after Katrina?
It's needed disaster relief. Humvees are not the crux of it, rather it's the common mentality that would (among other things) buy a Humvee with disaster aid.

Fifteen years later, and New Orleans is littered (still) with houses abandoned in the midst of partial reconstruction, or no construction since the storm.

The bottom line of it is that you want to punish a majority because of a perceived minority which bought Hummers.
Why would I want to punish anyone? That's your interpretation. Disaster relief is a temporary padding; it helps people get back to normal.

It is the UBI that would punish. It cements people into a new normal that comes at the permanent expense of others.
 
Then I have no clue why you actually brought it up because both a disaster relief and the UBI have completely different goals and intentions. It's not just about the money here.

Again, what the hell do I care if some people 'might' buy a Humvee from their disaster relief compared to all the 100.000 of people that needed it.

Why would I want to punish anyone? That's your interpretation. Disaster relief is a temporary padding; it helps people get back to normal.
Because I am somewhat lost. Is your point that some people will do shit with their money? Maybe buy drugs? Buy an expensive car? Yeah. Some people are assholes. No matter what. But they are a tiny minority. Not the majority.
 
Then I have no clue why you actually brought it up...

...what the hell do I care if some people 'might' buy a Humvee from their disaster relief...
This shows a blindness to the problem IMO; intrinsic to seeing why the UBI cannot solve it, and a willingness to try anyway, using other people's money.

A UBI legitimizes poverty and dependence upon government. With no stigma to it, it ensures that it will never -ever- improve, and the mindset of the population will decay unabated; past the point of even wanting to recover, neither conceiving of it nor valuing it.

*It is already like that now in parts of the US, with welfare.
 
Last edited:
This shows a blindness to the problem IMO; intrinsic to seeing why the UBI cannot solve it, and a willingness to try anyway, using other people's money.
Others people's money. Like as someone is coming to your house robbing you blind. Give me a brake Giz.

I don't see you complaining about the F35 being such a waste of billions of dollars - while it is painfully obvious that the fighter might be already obsolete before it really saw action.

A UBI legitimizes poverty and dependence upon government. With no stigma to it, it ensures that it will never -ever- improve, and the mindset of the population will decay unabated; past the point of even wanting to recover, or valuing it.

Sure call me blind. But I would be willing to give it a shot and at least try it in a limited fashion, like a state to see how it works. We tried trickle down economy for 40 years. Why not trickle up for once? Maybe it would surprise you. Who knows.
 
We tried trickle down economy for 40 years. Why not trickle up for once? Maybe it would surprise you. Who knows.
'Trickle up' sounds like a good idea... but what does that actually mean? There has to be some kind of value produced in order to trickle it up, no?

____

Can you envision a situation where a person would choose to forsake the UBI?

Sure call me blind.
Not blind, a blindspot. There is an expression that goes, " It's not what you know, it's what you know that ain't so...". I think that you think that people subsisting like barnacles from as early as their late teens will improve past that over time, provided they are given free money.

I think that that money would be better spent on something that provides useful jobs; something ---anything that would eventually start paying for itself; and not remain a perpetual money pit.


But I would be willing to give it a shot
I know.
 
Last edited:
'Trickle up' sounds like a good idea... but what does that actually mean? There has to be some kind of value produced in order to trickle it up, no?
There is quite a lot which we can see from a test here in Germany which I already mentioned to Hassknecht. Some people for example start their own business, other people get higher educations, where as others take time to care for their relatives. Other people spend money on repairs they have to do, fixing things in their house, their cars, replacing stuff, money that will be spend 99% of the time locally, in shops next door and so on. It is literally a support from the ground up where money is spend on the bottom moving upwards. And pretty much no one just stopped doing like "nothing".

And then you have positive outcomes which are difficult to measure in absolute numbers. Better supply of healthier food, better support for children - particularly in terms of education, better medical treatment resulting in healthier people that can make better choices and so on. This takes a lot of stress from public infrastructures for example. But you can not really put a price tag on a healthy diet for example or quality of life improvements like lower anxiety or depressions.

Not blind, a blindspot. There is an expression that goes, " It's not what you know, it's what you know that ain't so...".
Yes and this is certainly true for all of us.

I think that you think that people subsisting like barnacles from as early as their late teens will improve past that over time, provided they are given free money.
That's a simplfication of what I said and believe. What you talk about is more a difference in our idea about humans and human behaviour in general. You simply don't trust your fellow human being (generally speaking) to make good and sound choices in this instance where they will simply slander the money because they don't value it. So you would rather either see support to support them self or simply teaching them the value of working for your income - From what I understand.

Without the intention to sound arrogant but I think this somewhat ignores the complexity of our modern lives. What I envision is freedom. Ultimate freedom in economic terms. And yes I am a radical in this instance. And absolute freedom is only possible when you are not pressured into a decision. When you actually have the real choice to say 'no' without fearing repercussion. But for this to work I also must accept the fact that people will make choices that I would not make. Like an election. I can not force people to vote or it wouldn't be a free election anymore.

When you look at it historically the idea that you go out and actually do labour for someone else where they pay for you is a relatively new and modern development. For the most part in human history people have been self sufficient. And even in the United States there was during the 18th and 19th century a strong dismissal of wage work where it was even compared to chattel slavery Emma Goldman (1869 – 1940) famously denounced wage slavery by saying: "The only difference is that you are hired slaves instead of block slaves.

I quote The view that working for wages is akin to slavery dates back to the ancient world.[21] In ancient Rome, Cicero wrote that "the very wage [wage labourers] receive is a pledge of their slavery"


That's what the UBI is about. It's aiming to eliminate the need to do wage work for your livelihood.
 
I don't quite see how a UBI would result in better healthcare or better education. You're not making people rich, you're just pushing them a bit above the poverty line. Healthcare would stay the same, and would people really eat that much better? Healthy food isn't necessarily more expensive than junkfood, and giving people free money isn't going to turn them all into dieticians and cooking afficionados, is it? There's a correlation between bad health, obesity, and poverty, and I guess it'll be interesting to see how the causal relationship will turn out.
Better support for children? How? They just have a few bucks more in their pockets, and to pay for it all many other public funds have to be cut.
You're not suddenly elevating poor people into the middle class, you're just making them somewhat less poor and taking some stress away.
You keep saying that I severely underestimate the positive effects (usually in response to me saying that there are hundreds of billions still unaccounted for, for some reason), but I think you might overestimate them as well.
Also, YOUR ultimate freedom is still built on the productivity of others. It's a nice sentiment, but this freedom can't work for everyone unless you want to go back to full self-sufficiency, in which case everyone again has to work for themselves to survive. Your freedom is always built on the backs of others. It's a nice dream, but don't pretend that it's some sort of noble, idealistic future. It's offloading the consequences of your decisions on the society so you can do whatever you want. Well, some can't do what they want or the whole system crashes. Someone HAS to work for it. And I know what's coming now, "we have never tried it", "the money is there", "it can't be worse than trickle down economics", but that's all irrelevant to the point. You want your life financed by someone else, and unless something magical happens, this can't work for everyone. Some people have to work to prop it all up. And then you get the whole Atlas Shrugged thing, except not as retarded this time. You're basing the whole thing on the hope that some will just continue to work productively to prop it all up, for relatively small benefits because if they get too rich from working the idle masses will cry out again and threaten le gulag.
I still think we should give it a try. It won't be ultimate freedom, and inequality will remain, and it probably won't even change too much. But at least the NEETbux-Stans will finally shut their gobs for a while.

/edit: You don't want freedom of choice. You want freedom from consequence.
 
Last edited:
I don't quite see how a UBI would result in better healthcare or better education.
Of course we're talking mainly about people under the poverty line. Any UBI would have to be high enough in that sense that people are pushed above the poverty line.

Look I am just talking about the idea behind it. Nothing more nothing less.

/edit: You don't want freedom of choice. You want freedom from consequence.

Bullshit.
 
Bullshit.
It's literally what you said.
What I envision is freedom. Ultimate freedom in economic terms. And yes I am a radical in this instance. And absolute freedom is only possible when you are not pressured into a decision. When you actually have the real choice to say 'no' without fearing repercussion. But for this to work I also must accept the fact that people will make choices that I would not make. Like an election. I can not force people to vote or it wouldn't be a free election anymore.


That's what the UBI is about. It's aiming to eliminate the need to do wage work for your livelihood.
What is "repercussion" if not "consequence"? You want to be free from the consequence of poverty if you don't want to work. You want to have a nice, comfy life for nothing in return, on the backs of those somehow willing to share their productivity. Because those still working won't have that freedom. Engineers, for example, can't just take a break for a year or two without having repercussions, because their field of work moves on. They lose cutting edge knowledge, and they show future employers that they don't have loyalty or dependability if they do it too often. Your freedom has a price.
 
It's literally what you said.
No I didn't. That's your interpretation of it. And you're using engineers as example. I am not disputing that certain professions, particularly in the tech business come with an immense amount of pressure and work load hence why quite a lot of engineers have high wages.

Having to be on the edge in your profession because of rapid changes in technology and standards is something entirely different from being forced in to every job opportunity even if the wage you receive is barely enough to cover the absolute basics of living - in some cases it's not even here enough, as many jobs are subsidized in Germany (Aufstocker).

You're comparing two completely different worlds here. Like do you really want to compare the job situation of people working below the poverty lines with engineers that earn 5 or 6 000 a dollars month? Again the point is not which job is more difficult or requires more skills there are managers out there with 10-12 hour days and high burn out rates.

With an UBI an engineer who's not willing to keep up it anymore could decide to say, you know what I want a different live I am going to change my profession and do something less stressful even if it means a lower income. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people would like to make that choice exactly because they know this kind of stress is making them depressed or leading to burn out or simply not their cup of tea. I know people that have done this. The guy who's leading the charity organisation I am working with pretty much gave up everything in his old job and he made a hell of a lot of money. Thankfully he had many people that supported him trough the rough times, he was at some point even on well fare. With an UBI it would be easier to make that choice - I guess I can only speculate.

Again the point is not remove "consequences" it's about giving more options in your choices. Try to think a bit outside your box here and consider that there are many different ideas and insights to something. There isn't just one route or definition here just because we think there is.
 
It's literally what you said.

What is "repercussion" if not "consequence"? You want to be free from the consequence of poverty if you don't want to work. You want to have a nice, comfy life for nothing in return, on the backs of those somehow willing to share their productivity. Because those still working won't have that freedom. Engineers, for example, can't just take a break for a year or two without having repercussions, because their field of work moves on. They lose cutting edge knowledge, and they show future employers that they don't have loyalty or dependability if they do it too often. Your freedom has a price.

This is why I don't agree with UBI. There are other social programs that can help people that fall through the cracks. I know for a fact that crackheads would be making serious bank off the UBI. All that money would roll right back into meth.

People that work at places like your local gas station? Why would they keep working? They would make more money on UBI than they do working. Instead of working and collecting UBI they would just sit on their ass and draw a paycheck.

Why would you really do anything when most of your bills are paid every month for sitting on your ass? The answer to this is of course you wouldn't do shit. If you already live in poverty you would not do much of anything to change your situation. You would simply be taken care of until you die never having contributed to society, instead being a drain on everyone's livelihood. Just like Hass said.

I advise anyone that has considered this an option to try to file for disability. It's fairly obvious that people tend to think this way when they don't have disability. I mean because otherwise go get a fucking job. Right?
 
The UBI comes on top of their working wage, so the gas station attendant get a decent amount of money with that work. Of course, they can also not work at all and have no difference, basically. I guess if living costs increase enough more people will flock towards working those jobs again when the UBI isn't enough anymore.
 
I'm tracking that but I am certain some people would quit those jobs because they are shitty jobs. Every person working at those registers wants to die.
 
Back
Top